Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Benjamin McGuire]

There is a certain sense of irony in a statement like this Dale. After all, going on this, we don't have just one non-existent manuscript but two (that is, Ethan Smith's unpublished non-existent manuscript, followed by Spalding's unpublished and non-existent manuscript) leading to the Book of Mormon. For all of the criticism that LDS apologists get in a forum like this, these issues are not examinations of evidence, but grasping at anything that might confirm the theory.

There is, of course, as you note Dale the problems of conflation in the article, the problem that this late article is the first time a claim is made that Spalding even knew Ethan Smith - and yet this becomes the basis for another theory of origins.

Earlier Roger wrote this:

Exactly. This is why I said I agree with Ben's logic--at least up to a certain point.

What is remarkable about this statement is that it shows a clear double standard. When we have parallels between the Book of Mormon and other texts, it is always presented as evidence of borrowing - of textual reliance. Here, it is anything but the same, and can (and must) be explained as something else.

Ben McGuire

[_Uncle Dale]

There is a certain sense of irony
...

Not to mention the missing (never existed?) Johanine papyrus
for part of the D&C; the missing (never existed?) text for the
Book of Abraham; the missing (never existed?) original text for
the Book of Moses; the missing (never existed?) sealed plates;
the missing (never existed?) Nephite stone box on the Hill
Cumorah; the missing (never existed?) "Book of Lehi;" the
missing (never existed?) liahona; the missing (never existed?)
"golden plates"; the missing (never existed?) sword of Laban;
etc. etc. etc.

Then again Mormons quote Zenos, Zenock, Neum, and Ezias
as though the writings of these ancient (?) prophets (??)
were extant/verified/reliable even today.

Perhaps the phenomenon of "missing documents" is not today
confined to those folks offering non-traditional explanations --

???

UD

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Dale writes:

Perhaps the phenomenon of "missing documents" is not today confined to those folks offering non-traditional explanations --

And suddenly, by comparison yours is supposed to make sense?

Ben M.

[_MCB]

Not to mention the missing (never existed?) Johanine papyrus
for part of the D&C; the missing (never existed?) text for the
Book of Abraham; the missing (never existed?) original text for
the Book of Moses

I'm looking for them. Just remember that I have a lot of places to look.

[_Uncle Dale]

...yours...

Just to remind folks here, the claims for Spalding documents
(such as "The Frogs of Wyndham") were made before I was ever
born -- the people setting forth those claims died before I was
ever born. I never met them, nor conversed with them. Their
reports are theirs alone -- I did not make them up.

I have uncovered (and posted to the web) some correspondence
written by Mr. Spalding, as well as two short articles that were
published in the Pittsburgh newspaper near the time that he
moved to that place. If somebody wishes to assign those items'
transcripts to me -- then fine -- (that's all I take credit for).

If Mormons wish to believe that the several missing artifacts
associated with their late 1820s beginnings were real, then
that is their choice. But I am not confined by the necessity of
bearing witness to Nephite breastplates nor the holographs
of the Patriarch Abraham upon papyrus -- fortunately.

I suggest, however, that before Mormons accuse others of
being ridiculous in their acceptance of the existence of "lost"
texts, that they (the LDS) stop and think for a moment how
ridiculous they themselves appear in the eyes of many, when
Mormons appeal to the validity of a dozen or more of these sorts
of "lost" items themselves.

Their propensity in that direction comes across as ludicrous as
would a Scientologist's sneering at an investigator's use of a
polygraph or authentic biofeedback apparatus.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

I suggest, however, that before Mormons accuse others of
being ridiculous in their acceptance of the existence of "lost"
texts, that they (the LDS) stop and think for a moment how
ridiculous they themselves appear in the eyes of many, when
Mormons appeal to the validity of a dozen or more of these sorts
of "lost" items themselves.

UD

Dale, whether the LDS explanation concerning the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is correct or ludicrous has no bearing whatsoever on the the validity of the S/R authorship theory. All of the theories of Book of Mormon authorship stand or fall on their own merits. Throwing in all of these red herrings is a tacit admission of the weakness of your position.

The automatic writing theory of authorship is irrelevant to the S/R theory or the divinely translated theory. The "View of the Hebrew" theory is irrelevant to any of the others. One has no relation to the other and asserting that one is more plausible than the other or less plausible is irrelevant. The only relevancy is whether any one theory has enough evidence to render it plausible. The S/R theory has attracted some adherents over the years, but LDS scholars and most non LDS critics consider that theory untenable, and have articulated their reasons.

The Jockers study brought a ray of hope to S/R enthusiasts for a few months, but unless some fatal flaws can be found in Bruce Schaalje's extensions to the Jockers NSC methodology, there is no scientific basis to contend that Solomon Spalding, Sidney Rigdon, Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, or Joseph Smith are the authors of any parts of the Book of Mormon that are claimed to have been translated.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
the validity of the S/R authorship theory
...

Well, it has been a while since I've attended any meetings of
historians of early Mormon history -- but from my years of close
association with such people, I'm 100% convinced that the
non-LDS scholars accept the Fawn Brodie explanation.

So -- if you can help them prove that Joseph Smith wrote the
book -- or that it was Smith and Cowdery or Smith and his
mother -- I'm fully prepared to accept those results.

I'm not married to the explanation of Spalding and Rigdon having
contributed portions of the text. What I am interested in is the
truth. So, if the truth is that Cowdery and Smith put the thing
together, then so be it.

Or -- if Dan can convince us that Cowdery had no hand in the
fraud -- then I suppose I could be convinced that it was Smith
alone. But so far, neither you nor anybody else has been able
to do that.

If 100% of the non-LDS scholars accept the Smith-alone thesis,
then I guess I'm not one of them -- until they convince me.

UD

[_Roger]

I've been away for a couple days trying to keep food on the table. And it doesn't appear to be slowing down. I have a half finished post to Dan Vogel... who knows if it will ever see the light of day. If not, Ben & Glenn can chalk it up to yet another asserted document that doesn't exist.

Ben wrote:

all right then, here goes. I don't think any of these individuals had read the Book of Mormon. At best, their interactions with the Book of Mormon were from contact with Mormon missionaries, and published accounts about the Book of Mormon.

Well then, in essence, your calling them liars. Lake, for example, whom we have been discussing claimed to have been reading the Book of Mormon months before and leading up to his interview with Hurlbut. He's either lying, or Hurlbut had nothing to do with prompting him to read the Book of Mormon.

So what if their initial "interactions with the Book of Mormon were from contact with Mormon missionaries, and published accounts about the Book of Mormon"? You are implying that's the only contact with the Book of Mormon they had and you don't know that... in fact you are choosing to believe that contrary to what they actually state. Who knows how much of the book each of them had read or not? It doesn't matter one way or the other in the face of their claims to have seen similarities. They wouldn't have had to read the whole thing to make those claims.

From this perspective, there isn't a need for the Book of Mormon to be about the lost tribes, or this or that other issue - there just needs to be a first published account of such a thing that then gets incorporated into the public perception of the Book of Mormon - and this public perception gets used.

One of the most interesting comments (at least for me) came from the discussion of the straits of Darien. The reason why this is interesting to me is that not long before we see a witness mention this, we have Pratt publicly teaching about the Book of Mormon geography in connection to the straits of Darien (at least by early 1832). So we have the recollection of a decades earlier private conversation with Spalding that matches a very recent public (and published) explanation by Pratt. The only evidence for the private conversation with Spalding is this one recollection. Pratt seems a much more likely source.

Which really makes me curious about Pratt! On what authority was Pratt giving lectures on Book of Mormon geography? Where did Pratt come up with this idea "in connection to the straits of Darien"? Revelation?

[_Dan Vogel]

There is a certain sense of irony
...

Not to mention the missing (never existed?) Johanine papyrus
for part of the D&C; the missing (never existed?) text for the
Book of Abraham; the missing (never existed?) original text for
the Book of Moses; the missing (never existed?) sealed plates;
the missing (never existed?) Nephite stone box on the Hill
Cumorah; the missing (never existed?) "Book of Lehi;" the
missing (never existed?) liahona; the missing (never existed?)
"golden plates"; the missing (never existed?) sword of Laban;
etc. etc. etc.

Then again Mormons quote Zenos, Zenock, Neum, and Ezias
as though the writings of these ancient (?) prophets (??)
were extant/verified/reliable even today.

Perhaps the phenomenon of "missing documents" is not today
confined to those folks offering non-traditional explanations --

???

UD

Somehow this argument doesn’t make me feel any less concerned about your position, Dale.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Somehow this argument doesn’t make me feel any less concerned about your position, Dale.

Actually, it is not about me -- it is about Mormons virtually
laughing at the prospect of missing alleged historical sources,
while they themselves believe in numerous such missing sources.

But, to boil it all down -- either Joseph Smith wrote the entire
non-biblical portion of the book by himself; or else he made use of
other, pre-existing sources.

I'm ready to accept the possibility that Smith wrote 99.999% of
that non-biblical narrative, and that Oliver Cowdery wrote only
00.001% -- if I can be shown compelling evidence for that
conclusion.

I am also willing to accept the possibility that Rigdon, Spalding
and/or others provided contributions.

What I am not willing to do is to turn on my heels and pronounce
the conclusion that Smith wrote 100% of the non-biblical part,
and that there is zero percent chance of any other explanation.

Check back before I die, to see if I ever adopt that position.

UD